DRAFT Wyoming CWD Management Plan

[ClearCreek]

Go here:

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Get%20Involved/CWD/WGFD_DRAFTCWDManagementPlan_113019.pdf

ClearCreek

 

[ClearCreek]

Surprised there are no comments on this plan.

ClearCreek

 

[marshman]

Me too I guess, until you really stop and think about it. This CWD stuff is not good at all, and even the Fish and Game departments are pretty freaked out - for lack of a better way to put it.
It has already made changes to where I hunt. I do not want to be responsible for spreading this crap.
At this point that is all I got.

 

[elkduds]

To summarize: Hunters should kill as many mature bucks as possible during and after the rut, when they are most vulnerable. Sounds like the CO plan.

 

[Pelican]

To summarize: Hunters should kill as many mature bucks as possible during and after the rut, when they are most vulnerable. Sounds like the CO plan.

What is the alternative? Do nothing? Prayer? Wait for a vaccine that may never be developed? Even if a vaccine was developed, how the hell do you innoculate an entire deer or elk herd? Ted Nugent conspiracy theories?

 

[Irrelevant]

At this point there isn't a lot of evidence to suggest doing something is much better than not.

 

[Hem]

Bad excuse, sitting in the Target parking lot waiting on my female shoppers...no readers with me.
This season I tried to come to an understanding on CWD in Montana. Talked with wardens, resource folks, and listened to Newbergs podcast. My take on it is that CWD is here and though there has been significant study there still is no viable answer to controlling the spread. In the meantime, it's mostly about tracking the disease. I found it interesting that though there is no hard evidence humans can become infected, agencies still reccomend testing harvested animals and avoiding the consumption of animals testing positive. This is concerning...is it safe,or not? But then I determined that by creating a seed of doubt , it might encourage all hunters to get their game tested thereby providing a larger pool of information for tracking the spread of CWD. Okay, makes sense. However the process of testing AND WAITING for the results is the major hang up. So many possible scenarios which might further retard the process. I feel all efforts should be made to create a field test which hunters can use on the spot. It might be the only way to facilitate a broader base of involvement and a more effective means of containing CWD. Practically speaking, removing the lymph nodes and waiting 2-3 weeks for results (our only current procedure in Montana ) is farting in to the wind.
No finger pointing here and apologies for not reading the PDF.

 

[Pelican]

At this point there isn't a lot of evidence to suggest doing something is much better than not.

I don't now what you would consider a lot of evidence, but there is evidence from CO that more liberal harvest of deer (Red Feather/Poudre Area) reduced CWD prevalence and contributes to prevalence remaining low (Middle Park Area) vs. some other areas of CO which had a 10x increase in prevalence during the same time period. Prevalence in bucks is about 2X that of does and older deer have higher prevalence than younger deer of the same sex. Hence the strategy of increasing harvest of older bucks as they are most likely to be infected.

 

[Irrelevant]

I guess I look at CO, they still have deer, in fact they have shitloads of deer and are still considered the Mule Deer Factory of America yet have had CWD for decades. Same with some of the highest prevalence rates of CWD in elk in WY. Had it for a long time, killing deer doesn't get rid of the source of the problem, and as Wisconsin has shown, killing all the deer/buck you can still allows it to spread and in the end you don't have any deer, which is the same result you get WITH CWD.

 

[Pelican]

I guess I look at CO, they still have deer, in fact they have shitloads of deer and are still considered the Mule Deer Factory of America yet have had CWD for decades.

Hmm. So you believe the same people that manage "the mule deer factory of America" have suddenly become incompetent? Your statement actually made me laugh because CO hunters complain about CPW and the lack of deer in our state just like hunters in other states, the complainers just aren't on HT.
Prevalence rate has increased drastically (10X) in some areas since the early 2002's. You are implying the situation has not changed in Colorado and that is certainly not true. We now have units with prevalence rates >30%.

Had it for a long time, killing deer doesn't get rid of the source of the problem, and as Wisconsin has shown,

Wisconsin gave up culling in 2007 due to public outcry (sounds familiar) while Illinois continued culling deer. Pick a trajectory.

Graph from Manjerovic et. al. 2013. The importance of localized culling in stabilizing chronic wasting disease prevalence in white-tailed deer populations. Preventive Veterinary Medicine.

killing all the deer/buck you can still allows it to spread and in the end you don't have any deer, which is the same result you get WITH CWD.

The goal of increasing harvest (not killing every deer) is to slow the spread and keep prevalence rates low enough that they are not having population level effects. Colorado has had CWD in the wild for nearly 40 years and prevalence is still increasing in some areas and based on currently available information it will continue. That's the crux, not eliminating the disease.

 

[HONEYBADGER]

How many more deer do they plan on killing and when? The winters may do it for them....

 

[bullbugle307]

One thing to consider in regards to increased harvest is genotypes and how they effect the liklihood of contracting the disease and how long it takes a deer to die of CWD. As I understand, there are genotypes (using the plural to lump in mule deer and whitetail) that are associated with lower rates of the disease and longer survival upon contraction of the disease. Longer survival means more prions on the landscape and more liklihood of contact with non CWD deer, but lower liklihood of contraction among certain genotypes may offset the negatives associated with longer survival after contracting the disease.

One possible problem with killing more deer is that we can't control which deer we kill. There may or may not be a "better genotype" in the long run, and natural selection towards a POSSIBLY "better" genotype may weak and make it a moot point. But I do worry about killing more deer in terms of how it could affect selection towards certain genotypes and the fact that it may just speed up the decline.

Of course, you also have to consider that fewer deer, fewer bucks, and lower densities overall may be the best scenario too.

All I know for certain is that CWD sucks, and no matter what we do the foregone conclusion is fewer deer.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I’ve linked to studies previously on the genetic resistance aspect, but here’s something that is a little easier to digest.

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ou...ation/cervid/cervids-cwd/cervid-cws-specifics

Basically all genotypes still die, the “resistant” one simply results in a few more weeks (on average) between infection and death. That genotype is the least common one in wild populations, which suggests it might be unfavorable to individual’s survival under other selection pressures. This seems to be true for both deer and elk IIRC.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

We, as Sportsmen and women, fight to conserve our public lands and the wildlife that reside on it. CWD will eventually, over time, remove that same wildlife that we are fighting to conserve.

Mother Nature can really be a BITCH, when she wants to be!

Hunting Wife....Thanks for the link!

 

[onpoint]

We, as Sportsmen and women, fight to conserve our public lands and the wildlife that reside on it. CWD will eventually, over time, remove that same wildlife that we are fighting to conserve.

Mother Nature can really be a BITCH, when she wants to be!

Hunting Wife....Thanks for the link!

Don't blame Ma Nature too much, we (the apex of evolution/God's creation-so as not to offend....) most likely have more than a small hand in this little problem's presence...............................................

 

[BuzzH]

Hmm. So you believe the same people that manage "the mule deer factory of America" have suddenly become incompetent? Your statement actually made me laugh because CO hunters complain about CPW and the lack of deer in our state just like hunters in other states, the complainers just aren't on HT.
Prevalence rate has increased drastically (10X) in some areas since the early 2002's. You are implying the situation has not changed in Colorado and that is certainly not true. We now have units with prevalence rates >30%.

Wisconsin gave up culling in 2007 due to public outcry (sounds familiar) while Illinois continued culling deer. Pick a trajectory.
View attachment 122017
Graph from Manjerovic et. al. 2013. The importance of localized culling in stabilizing chronic wasting disease prevalence in white-tailed deer populations. Preventive Veterinary Medicine.

The goal of increasing harvest (not killing every deer) is to slow the spread and keep prevalence rates low enough that they are not having population level effects. Colorado has had CWD in the wild for nearly 40 years and prevalence is still increasing in some areas and based on currently available information it will continue. That's the crux, not eliminating the disease.

Conflicting data?

However, in some southeastern Wyoming mule deer herds where the disease has long been established, CWD prevalence has either somewhat declined from peak levels and/or has remained relatively static, albeit at levels high enough to likely impact population performance. Overall, prevalence tends to be higher in southeastern Wyoming, where the disease has long been established but is quickly becoming more common and widespread in much of the state.

This is the number one problem, anyone that makes the claim that one set of data in regard to CWD and its management is "THE ANSWER", if full of crap. There hasn't been enough long term studies and long term management done to draw conclusions. I also don't think its fair to compare information between states, it may be relevant, it may not be. We don't know what the infection prevalence rates were between Illinois and Wisconsin, deer distribution, deer behavior in regard to contact, genotypes between the two, and a laundry list of other "details" left out. It could be that the comparisons are very good between WI and IL...or it could be a very biased comparison. I'm not against comparisons, but caution should be used when trying to draw conclusions from one state to the next...could be all kinds of mitigating circumstances and what works in one area, may be a disaster in another.

Plus, there's also the fact that you're using whitetailed deer in WI and applying the same concept to mule deer. There are lots of other issues to consider when you start culling or increasing harvest on mule deer. Whitetail are prolific and rebound pretty fast and in WI and IL with a lot less additive mortality than mule deer. When you start thinking about "helping" mule deer by increasing buck harvest and reducing the over-all population by killing does, you better be considering how much bigger of an impact other forms of mortality are going to have on a suppressed population. Lets also not forget that mule deer populations are already in the crapper in much of the West...IMO, it would take a pretty big set of brass balls to implement a sweeping management practice (culling, slamming buck mule deer in the rut, significantly lowering population levels, etc.) across large geographic areas. In particular when nobody knows for sure what the best approach is to do deal with cwd, or even if that approach works at all.

I'm not saying don't try things, but proceed at a rate that allows for the careful study of what you're doing. Be cautious about declaring victory or defeat in those efforts. In my lifetime, I've seen massive mistakes made by jumping to conclusions too fast on buying in, hook-line-and sinker, to fixing complex problems.

No easy answers, but I don't believe for one second we're going to shoot our way out of the CWD problem...aint happening.

 

[Pelican]

Conflicting data?

However, in some southeastern Wyoming mule deer herds where the disease has long been established, CWD prevalence has either somewhat declined from peak levels and/or has remained relatively static, albeit at levels high enough to likely impact population performance. Overall, prevalence tends to be higher in southeastern Wyoming, where the disease has long been established but is quickly becoming more common and widespread in much of the state.

This is the number one problem, anyone that makes the claim that one set of data in regard to CWD and its management is "THE ANSWER", if full of crap. There hasn't been enough long term studies and long term management done to draw conclusions. I also don't think its fair to compare information between states, it may be relevant, it may not be. We don't know what the infection prevalence rates were between Illinois and Wisconsin, deer distribution, deer behavior in regard to contact, genotypes between the two, and a laundry list of other "details" left out. It could be that the comparisons are very good between WI and IL...or it could be a very biased comparison. I'm not against comparisons, but caution should be used when trying to draw conclusions from one state to the next...could be all kinds of mitigating circumstances and what works in one area, may be a disaster in another.

Plus, there's also the fact that you're using whitetailed deer in WI and applying the same concept to mule deer. There are lots of other issues to consider when you start culling or increasing harvest on mule deer. Whitetail are prolific and rebound pretty fast and in WI and IL with a lot less additive mortality than mule deer. When you start thinking about "helping" mule deer by increasing buck harvest and reducing the over-all population by killing does, you better be considering how much bigger of an impact other forms of mortality are going to have on a suppressed population. Lets also not forget that mule deer populations are already in the crapper in much of the West...IMO, it would take a pretty big set of brass balls to implement a sweeping management practice (culling, slamming buck mule deer in the rut, significantly lowering population levels, etc.) across large geographic areas. In particular when nobody knows for sure what the best approach is to do deal with cwd, or even if that approach works at all.

I'm not saying don't try things, but proceed at a rate that allows for the careful study of what you're doing. Be cautious about declaring victory or defeat in those efforts. In my lifetime, I've seen massive mistakes made by jumping to conclusions too fast on buying in, hook-line-and sinker, to fixing complex problems.

No easy answers, but I don't believe for one second we're going to shoot our way out of the CWD problem...aint happening.

I referenced the WI/IL whitetail data in response to another members post. I agree, a high density resident WT deer population in WI is much different than a combination of resident and migrating populations of WT, MD, Elk and Moose and probably has little bearing on CWD management in WY or CO.
Colorado spent 12-15 years as enrolled members in the Waitandsee Tribe as far was CWD is concerned. Like WY, CWD prevalence in some areas remained similar after 15 years while other areas prevalence increased 10X. After 15 years, being proactive seems to be in order rather than continuing to sit on the fence with everyone else. I hope that CPW has the will and support to fend off the monday morning quarterback for a sufficient amount of time to test whether there is any validity to altered age structure and Buck to doe ratios reducing prevalence.

 

[Pelican]

How many more deer do they plan on killing and when? The winters may do it for them....

In 2019, the recommendations from CPW to the Wildlife Commission was a 7% increase in buck tags and 6% increase in doe tags. Doe tag increases were proposed in units that were at or above objective and not for the purpose of CWD management. The buck tag increase was proposed for units that were at or above objective and/or units that were above the CWD prevalence threshold. I don't have any idea if there will be more proposed increases in 2020 for the purpose of CWD management.

 

[HONEYBADGER]

In 2019, the recommendations from CPW to the Wildlife Commission was a 7% increase in buck tags and 6% increase in doe tags. Doe tag increases were proposed in units that were at or above objective and not for the purpose of CWD management. The buck tag increase was proposed for units that were at or above objective and/or units that were above the CWD prevalence threshold. I don't have any idea if there will be more proposed increases in 2020 for the purpose of CWD management.

Thanks Pelican.

 

[Lost Arra]

Management plans by wildlife departments will be limited in their effectiveness until a better testing system for hunters is developed and any G&F plan is coordinated with the Dept of Agriculture in controlling or eliminating game farms. The only mention of Agriculture I can find in a quick read of this draft is related to game processors and donated meat.